Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/19/2008 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES RECEIVED FIb'ED $: :]Opm 2 6 2009 ~uthold Town Clerk Wednesday, November 19, 2008 6:00 PM Present were: Jim King, President Jill Dohedy, Vice-President Dave Bergen, Trustee Peggy Dickerson, Trustee Bob Ghosio, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: December 3, 2008, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: December 10, 2008, at 6:00 PM WORK SESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of September 17, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: My name is Jim King, I have the honor of serving as Chairman of the Board of Trustees. At this time I would like to introduce the rest of the folks here. To my far left is Trustee Dave Bergen; next to Dave is Peggy Dickerson; next to me is Jill Dohedy, the vice chair. To my right is Lauren Standish. Lauren runs the office for us. To her right is Bob Ghosio, the last trustee, and I don't know who we'll have as our legal advisor. I thought Kieran Corcoran would be here, our Assistant Town Attorney. He's not here yet. Jack McGreeveyjust walked in, a member of Board of Trustees 2 November 19, 2008 the CAC. They go out and do site inspections and give us their recommendations, and Wayne Galante is here keeping track of everything, so if you have any comments, please come up to the microphone and identify yourself so he can get you on the record. With that being said, I guess we'll get going. We have a few postponements tonight. We won't be talking about them. Page five number throe, En-Consultants on behalf of ALAN CARDINALE JR., requests a Wetland Permit to remove an existing accessory dwelling structure and attached deck, asphalt driveway and leaching pool, and construct a one-story detached garage, pervious gravel driveway extension and install drywell to capture and recharge roof runoff. Located: 1134 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue, has been postponed. Number eight, Costello Marine on behalf of MICHAEL SLADE requests a Wetland Permit to remove 163' of existing wooden boardwalk to allow for the reconstruction of the existing bulkhead. Reconstruct 172' of existing bulkhead by rosheathing landward side of bulkhead with Everlast 2.1 vinyl sheathing. Install new 1"x6' tie rod ends welded into existing backing system tie rods. Reinstall wooden boardwalk inplace after bulkhead roconstruction is completed. Construct an eight-foot extension to existing finger pier. Install two new ten-inch diameter by 30' long support pilings at offshore end. Maintenance drodge an area 50' seaward from the existing bulkhead to a depth of-4.0' below MLW on the east end and progrossing to-7.0' below MLW on the west end. Approximately 350 cubic yards of dredged spoil to be trucked off site to an approved upland disposal site. Located: 1435 West Road, Cutchogue, has been postponed. Number nine, Christopher Stress on behalf of CUTCHOGUE-NEW SUFFOLK PARK DISTRICT requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 10x16' pavilion six feet from the top of the bluff. Located: S/W corner of West Road and Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue, has been postponed. And number ten, Catherine Mesiano on behalf of ROBERT CELIC requests a Wetland Permit to replace three existing wood jetties 68', 65' and 50' using 10x15' wood piles @ 6' on center and C-Loc vinyl sheathing or equivalent. Located: 910 Park Avenue Ext., Mattituck, has been postponed. We won't be addressing those tonight. The first thing is to set our next field inspection for Wednesday, December 3, eight o'clock in the morning. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 3 November 19, 2008 (ALL AYES.) The regular meeting is December 10, six o'clock, with our work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: I have not read the minutes of September yet. Has anybody else? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have. I didn't even have any changes. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of September 17, 2008. TRUSTEE KING: Second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second it. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) I. MONTHLY REPORT: TRUSTEE KING: The Trustees monthly report for October, 2008. A check for $8,745.08 was forwarded to the Supervisor's office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: TRUSTEE KING: Public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: TRUSTEE KING: We have a few state environmental quality reviews. Resolved that the Board of Trustees for the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, November 19, 2008, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. They read as follows: Leo & Virginia Alessi - SCTM#92-1-3 Roberta Jaklevic - SCTM#117-5-21.1 Charles & Amy Scharf - SCTM#81-3-25.1 &26 Wunneweta Pond Association - SCTM#118-1-p/ol 1 Daniele Cacioppo - SCTM#92-1-4 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: Board of Trustees 4 November 19, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: The following are resolutions and administrative permits. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number one, JANE SWEENEY requests an Administrative Permit to trim and remove two dead trees and to maintenance trim four trees. Located: 150 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. This one was already done and a violation was issued and taken care of. The Board went out and looked at it. The only thing we noticed was the mowing that was taking place all the way down to the water and basically mowing in some of the wetland. So in my motion to approve I would make it a condition to stop mowing into the wetlands. I don't know if we wanted to put an actual buffer. In the survey it's hard to tell. TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't show the wetlands. We didn't take a measurement. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. well, it could go in line with the neighbor. Because it's a clear line going where the wetlands were. They could stop at that line and let all that grow back. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actually, the neighbor's property is farther landward, the wetland boundary, because they actually have a bulkhead and basin in there where this applicant doesn't have a basin in there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, there was part of it in between the basin and where there was mowing that was not mowed. I don't know whose property that was. Maybe it's Sweeney's property that was not being mowed. It's just that one section of it. So I'll just make a motion to approve the application subject to the mowing of the wetland grasses to be stopped, and if the applicant needs to get a further definition -- TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we get a better survey showing where the wetland line is, so we know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm much more comfortable with that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, so do you want to table this or approve subject to -* TRUSTEE KING: Approve it subject to receiving a survey with the wetland line showing, and we could revisit it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make that motion. I'll make a motion to approve Jane Sweeney's request for administrative permit to remove two dead trees and maintenance trim four trees with the condition that a proper survey is submitted showing the wetland line of the property so we can designate where the no-mow zone will be. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, ORIENT ACRES LLC, IRENE MALLIS & EVA MALLIS request an Administrative Permit to install a two-rail split rail fence (100') along the Board of Trustees 5 November 19, 2008 property line, beginning at the bluff on the western side and continuing along the north/south property line. Located: 32625 Main Road, Orient. We looked at it. It's exempt from LWRP. It's nothing more than continuing the existing fence along the property line and leading up toward the top of the bluff; the split retail fence, no problem; and I would make a motion that we approve this application, this administrative permit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, STRONG'S MARINE, INC., requests an Administrative Permit to remove gravel over drains behind the existing shop building, remove drainage covers and clean out debris, raise the height of the covers approximately 10-12" to grade and reinstall covers and grade level with parking area. Located: Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. We all went down and looked at this. It was determined consistent under the LWRP and we had no problem actually doing exactly what was suggested here. So I make a motion to approve the application TRUSTEE KING: Just one thing, Dave. He had a violation and I don't know if the violation has been resolved yet or not. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe it has. He came in and paid. He didn't go to court today but he took care of it with Lauren. TRUSTEE KING: I'll stipulate it's fine as long as the violation has been taken care of. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Peggy has a good point. It should be on the sheet. Because at the bay constable meeting I recall and it was also stated it was taken care of, but it should be on the sheet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I believe it was. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can approve it subject to the violation being handled. TRUSTEE KING: Sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I'll make that motion with that amendment that it's subject, the approval is subject to the adjudication of the or, not adjudication, sorry, that the violation has been handled with the Town Attorney's office. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, Abigail Wickham, Esq., on behalf of BUD GEORGE HOLMAN requests an Administrative Permit for the existing porch and deck located on the southwest side of the dwelling. Located: 350 Park Avenue, Mattituck. Board o~:Trustees 6 November 19, 2008 This was found inconsistent with LWRP, however this is something that the applicant enclosed the screened-in porch and put a deck on the side. It's not going any further seaward. And it was done years ago. The applicant says almost 20 years ago. It definitely was done years ago, and now they are looking for a CO for the house, so they need the proper permits. They do have gutters, leaders and drywells, so having that, that mitigates it, and I find it consistent. So I make a motion to approve the application as applied for. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Nancy Dwyer on behalf of SCOTT AMI~,ROSINO requests an Administrative Permit to replace the existing siding, windows, doors and rotted wood on the existing dwelling; install two new windows in back area left and right side of existing back wall; trim trees upland of wetlands and remove a fallen tree. Located: 1940 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. We all went out and looked at this. That was the cottage in very bad condition and they are restoring it. We had marked two or three trees to be removed. There was one fallen cedar tree in the wetlands. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There are actually many trees that had ribbons on them that they wanted to remove, and I believe that we covered in front, first off, there was a fallen cedar tree down in the wetlands that we didn't have a problem -- sorry, I don't know if it was a cedar or not. But anyway, a fallen tree down in the wetlands. We had no problem removing that. And I believe we told them that line of trees to the eastern side of the property, we did not want them removed, that bordered his property and the neighbor's property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And they took the tape off, right, when we were there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: So it's the one stump by the deck we said yes, take that out. And there was another one, it was a smaller one, we said take that, but not the big one. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is ribbon there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's outside our jurisdiction. That's on the other side of the house. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There (indicating.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And these are the ones you are talking about, Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We told them this one right here. That one right there, they can't take down. So they Board ol; Trustees 7 November 19, 2008 took the tape off that and I believe that one they took the tape off. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So, I think, more specifically, the trees that were on the water side of the house, the stumps that were on the water side of the house we had no problems with, that there was a tree on the western side next to the house that he was concerned would fall on the house. We didn't have a problem with that, and the removal of that one tree, the downed tree in the wetland, but the others within our jurisdiction on the eastern side, we did not want to see them, on the eastern side of the property line, we didn't want to see them removed. The other trees that are all outside our jurisdiction, that's outside our jurisdiction, so that's not our business. TRUSTEE KING: The applicant is here. MR. AMBROSINO: Scott Ambrosino. The only thing we talked about, to the right of the patio was the dead tree. If you remember, we were taking that out. That's on the eastern side of the house. And I don't see on here the phragmites, trimming the phragmites. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we had told you in the field was any changes you want, you have to notify the office. We can certainly add it now. That's what we were waiting for you to come in at your discretion. MR. AMBROSlNO: I thought Nancy did it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We didn't receive anything from her. MR. AMBROSlNO: What's the procedure for putting down trimming the phragmites? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You just did it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sometimes it's easy. TRUSTEE KING: Just indicate on the survey the area you'll be trimming the phragmites. MR. AMBROSINO: On the survey? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. AMBROSlNO: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: We also talked about where the wetland line is, staying ten-feet landward of that and making that a no-mow zone. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you could mark that on the survey as well. MR. AMBROSINO: The no-mow line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the phragmites to be cut by hand. Don't go in with a machine. MR. AMBROSINO: Just so I understand, with the survey, because Rob from Eh-Consultants already did the survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we have a survey here we could just draw on it? TRUSTEE KING: This is the only survey we've got. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We don't have one from En-Consultants. MR. AMBROSINO: We can get you a copy. It's basically Board of Trustees 8 November 19, 2008 the same thing. It's just a line at the end of it, but the delineation is basically the same thing. TRUSTEE KING: So I'll make a motion to approve the application as written plus include trimming the phragmites down to 12 inches and the inclusion of a ten-foot no-mow buffer along the wetland line. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second, subject to receiving a new survey. TRUSTEE KING: That will be on the new survey, yes. MR. AMBROSINO: Just for my clarification, do I give that to you or Nancy? Where does that go? TRUSTEE BERGEN: To our office. TRUSTEE KING: To our office. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: And note, Jim, that it was listed as exempt under the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it was found exempt. And one of the recommendations was to require a non-disturbance buffer, no-mow zone, which we have already done. V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/AMENDMENTS/TRANSFERS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Numbers one through 12 we can put together. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under applications for extensions/amendments/transfers. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. The rest are inconsistent or we have to talk about. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Applications for extension amendments and transfers, to try to speed this along, the applications that we thought were straightforward and we reviewed, we were out in the field and reviewed the file, I'll make a motion that we'll approve applications one through 12. It's on pages two and three, one through 12. They read as follows: Number one, LEE & MARIE BENINATI request a One-Year extension to Permit #6510 as issued on December 13, 2006. Located: 855 Oakwood Drive, Southold. Number two, CHRISTOPHER & EVELYN CONKLIN requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6520, as issued on January 24, 2007. Located: 3400 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. Number three, ANTONIO & GRAZIA VANGI request a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #6505 and Coastal Board o~'Trustees 9 November 19, 2008 Erosion Permit #6505C as issued on December 13, 2006, and amended on April 18, 2007. Located: 645 Glen Court, Cutchogue. Number four, Lori Luscher on behalf of MARION LAKE RESTORATION COMMITTEE requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6484 as issued on November 15, 2006. Located: Bay Avenue, East Marion. Number five, Costello Marine on behalf of FRED POLLERT requests a One-Year Extension to Permit #6503, as issued on December 13, 2006, and amended on March 21, 2007. Located: 375 Lighthouse Lane, Southold. Number six, Patricia Moore on behalf of FITF, LLC, requests an Amendment to Permit #6507 to reflect the change in the footprint of the proposed dwelling and a One-Year Extension to Permit #6507 to reflect the change in the footprint of the proposed dwelling, and a One-Year Extension to Permit #6507, as issued on December 13, 2006. Located: Reservoir Road, Fishers Island. Number seven, ROBERT & LISA DEFRESE request an Amendment to Permit #6967 to relocate the 16x10' shed to the westerly side of the property. Located: 5223 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. Number eight, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of EDWARD FERGUS requests an Amendment to permit #6302 to amend the septic system and include additional drainage to comply with the drainage code and the last One-Year extension to Permit #6302 as issued on February 15, 2006 and amended on February 14, 2007, and December 12, 2007. Located: 1854 North Bayview Road, Southold. Number nine, Stanley Skrezec on behalf of JOHN XlKIS requests an Amendment to Permit #6655 to extend the existing bulkhead two-feet higher along the 200' span. Located: 55585 County Road 48, Southold. Number ten, Garrett Strang on behalf of SPIRO GEROULANOS requests an Amendment to Permit #6684 to remove the existing dock and construct a new dock consisting of a 4x70' fixed catwalk using Flow-Thru decking, 2.5'x12' ramp and 6x20' seasonal floating dock with 4"x4" posts landward of MLW, and six-inch diameter piles seaward of MLW. Located: 2130 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. Number 11, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of JAMIE & NANCY SANTIAGO requests an Amendment to Board of Trustees 10 November 19, 2008 Permit #6654 to plant the 15' non-turf buffer and bluff face, in places that are exposed to erosion. Located: 3745 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. And number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of ALAN CARDINALE, JR., requests an Amendment to Permit #6536 to allow for the previously unapproved increase in habitable space in second-story as part of the previously approved roofed restructuring. Located: 1134 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. I'll make a motion to approve those. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: And number 13, En-Consultants on behalf of WILLIAM & JOANNE TURNBULL requests an Amendment to Permit #6680 to reduce the scope of the proposed seaward and easterly expansion of the dwelling, resulting in a 252 square foot decrease in the footprint of the proposed dwelling from 2,315 square feet to 2,063 square feet; eliminate the proposed 10x13' deck addition and replace all existing decking with masonry patio; relocate and reduce the size of the proposed swimming pool from 20x37' to 20x32', resulting in a 92 square foot decrease in size of the pool and an increase in the setback of the pool to the crest of the bluff from 24' to 27'; and relocate the proposed shed, resulting in an increase in the setback of the shed to the crest of the bluff from 21' to 25'. Located: 54005 North Road, Southold. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? (No response.) TRUSTEE KING: It was originally inconsistent. We issued a permit for it and now it's completely downsizing of what was already issued. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So it makes it more consistent. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, so in my mind it's a lesser of everything. And I don't have a problem with making a motion to approve. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 14, En-Consultants on behalf of PATRICIA GILCHRIST MANCINO requests an Amendment to Permit #6183 to authorize the inplace replacement of 122 linear feet of timber bulkhead with vinyl; the inplace replacement of the existing 9' easterly timber return with vinyl; construct 10x30' wood deck in place Board olZTrustees 11 November 19, 2008 of concrete patio to be removed; and construct 4' wood walkway landward of bulkhead. Located: 15 Fourth Street, New Suffolk. We did go down and look at this. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be inconsistent and with a recommendation to require a 20-foot non-turf buffer to achieve best management practices. Now we did go down and look at this and we had a couple of suggestions here for the applicant, so I would ask if the applicant is here, if he could step up to the microphone, please. MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, Rob, when we went out and looked at this, we had two suggestions here. One was that we noticed that the bulkhead to the west, the Goggins bulkhead, was built higher than the Mancino bulkhead, and what we would like to propose is that the Mancino bulkhead is raised to the same level as the Goggins bulkhead, so that it's consistent, and in doing so it will help mitigate that slope, that I would not call a steep slope, but the slope that comes down within the first ten feet landward of the bulkhead now, which would help address any runoff issues and also the bulkhead would then be straight across. And that was a proposal that we had, and with it was a ten-foot non-turf buffer. In other words that's a buffer that would match the Goggins property to the west of the consistent buffer going from the western to the eastern edge of the Mancino property. MR. HERMAN: Yes, when the permit was originally issued for this property, you did condition a ten-foot non-turf buffer, and that is shown on the plan and that is consistent with Goggins. So when the work is done that would be established. Obviously it has not been established yet because we have not done the work. I mean, other than the cost of bringing in fill to raise the bulkhead, I can't think of any reason why they would object to raising the height. So I would say if we could certainly go with that tonight and then if they have a problem with it, I doubt you would object to them leaving it the same height, but I would venture a guess they would be okay with that, at least to some extent higher. I mean the Goggins wall was built a bit higher than what is there. I don't know what the differential is, but to probably go up a foot, it would match or probably get pretty close. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what I'm hearing you say is you don't have an objection to what we are proposing here? MR. HERMAN: I don't think so. I think if we said we would raise the bulkhead a foot or foot and change, if that would bring it to the same height, that I think I would be comfortable going along with that, and then if I go back to the client and there is some objection to Board olZTrustees 12 November 19, 2008 it, I would have to report back to you. I think I would feel comfortable, if the Board would be okay with it, I think they would be okay with it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It seems silly to come back if he's going to leave it. Can the permit be worded so that either is acceptable in the permit? MR. HERMAN: Just leave the option of raising to match. Yes, I would say that would be a perfect way to do it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It seems silly for you to come back to leave it the way it is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the feeling of the Board on this? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why don't we do that, and when the job is done, submit the survey of what is done, and we'll do that with a compliance check. MR. HERMAN: Or as long as a decision could be made before construction commenced, I could just give you revised plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Either way. MR. HERMAN: I think what Peggy is saying, it just obviates the need for a second round of processing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. We want to try to avoid that. MR. HERMAN: So if you give us the option, I could either report back, we could leave the plan the same or I could give you revised plans reflecting the increase in height with some, I would have to calculate the fill and just write the permit that way. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then what I would like to propose to the Board is that the approval of this application as per the plans submitted November 10, 2008, which shows the non-turf buffer, that would then bring it into consistency with the LWRP, and that the bulkhead could be replaced at the height that is depicted on the plans or the applicant has the opportunity to raise it to the height that is similar to the Goggins bulkhead, the property immediately to the west. MR. HERMAN: That sounds great. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With new plans. MR. HERMAN: The plan date is October 31, though. I think you just read November something. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's what is stamped November 10, 2008. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As received in the office TRUSTEE KING: Why was it found inconsistent? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The decking, I believe Scott said. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To construct a four-foot wide walkway landward of the bulkhead made it inconsistent, so he suggested that if there is a ten-foot, excuse me, he suggested a 20-foot non-turf buffer to mitigate it. So what we have already stated previously was a ten-foot and so that would bring it into consistency under the LWRP. MR. HERMAN: I think the definition in your code of a non-turf buffer includes specifically an allowance for a boardwalk. Board o?Trustees 13 November 19, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely. It's one of our practices we used in the past, we allowed walkways as long as there is a width, I believe, of at least an eighth of an inch between the slats or the decking, that that satisfies a non-turf buffer. So I would make a motion to approve that application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number 15, JEANNE SWEET BARTOS & MICHAEL BARTOS request an Amendment to Permit #4950 to include the existing slate patio, existing shed, rebuild the existing wood steps and replace with stone, repair the existing bulkhead with sheathing and fill voids with existing fill. Located: 1820 Mill Lane, Peconic. This was a little problematic because evidently there was some work done to the porch line. The bay constable went there to advise the property owners to come to the Trustees and get going with their permit process. Evidently they did not. The bay constable went back there two weeks later and evidently it turned very hostile where there was a lot of problems between the bay constable and the property owner. Since that time the property owner's wife has come into the office and has tried to handle this. I don't believe the violations have been settled, so we can't move with this, but I do think we should contact the owner. We talked about a non-turf buffer the entire length of that bulkhead. We talked about trying to get some kind of drainage for that platform that he built. That was originally a wooden platform. He replaced it with stone and slate. All the work was done without a permit. And he put sod down behind the bulkhead. They did repairs behind the sheathing, then put sod in against the bulkhead, and there is no drainage for the patio. I think if we get a non4urf buffer in there about ten feet, the whole length of the bulkhead, I think that will take care of the drainage. And then on the other side of the property is county property, somebody has been dumping turf, some sod, stones, rubbish into the county property. And that has to be cleaned up. And the reason I want to contact the owners is because we have winter coming on and to get that non-turf buffer in there and everything, they should do it before the ground gets frozen. I talked to Lori about it. I thought she said everything had been adjourned until January, so, like I said, I would like to contact the owners and tell them, this is what we want you to do, get going on it, take care of these violations, then we'll issue the permit for it. [~oard o?Trustees 14 November 19, 2008 TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I don't think it was just on that, what is depicted in that slide right now, on the, I guess that was the southeast side of the property. It's not just removal but restoring the wetlands that had been encroached upon there. We wanted to see that happen also. TRUSTEE KING: I think we need to contact the owner and see what we can do to move this thing along. But we can't move on it tonight because I don't think the violations have been taken care of. Like I say, it sounds to me it kind of got out of control, because three violations were written. I would make a motion to just table this and we'll contact the owners. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Number 16, Peter Pappas on behalf of BRUNO FRANKOLA requests an Amendment to Permit #5999 to install a five-foot wide concrete walkway from the front door of the dwelling to the end of the driveway. Located: 840 Northfield Lane, Southold. I looked at this. The full Board has seen this. I don't have a picture of it, but it's a very large building. The permit we have given has a pervious gravel driveway, and the pathway is from the front of the house toward the road, but it bends around and down to a driveway that is headed down toward a wetland area. So I have no problem approving the walkway, but I would not approve it being concrete. It would have to be pervious. It doesn't have to be gravel. It could even be slate pieces with pervious material around it. TRUSTEE KING: Those pavers. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, as long as it's pervious. But the area has to much of a drainage problem. I make the motion to approve with a pervious, five-foot wide walkway. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Number 17, Patricia on behalf of JOHN & EMILY BREESE requests a Transfer of Permit #2064 from Lud Becker to John & Emily Breese, as issued on August 28, 1985. Located: 3689 Pine Neck Road, Southold. The whole Board went out and took a look at that. We found a drainage pipe that comes through the bulkhead. That's something that we would like to have capped off. We also would like to see a five-foot non-turf buffer along the bulkhead, and we noted that there was a boat lift there that is not on the survey. MS. MOORE: A what? Board olZTrustees 15 November 19, 2008 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: A boat lift. We really don't know if that's -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Not this boat. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And also we just wanted to make note that the dimensions that are on the original permit is not the dimensions of what is out there. MS. MOORE: I just noticed that now, because I read the six feet and apparently when it was originally built, it was much larger. I think it shrunk over time. My client purchased this property in 2000 and it was his understanding that all the permits were in place. At the time in 2000 you didn't have to transfer permits. So when he learned of it, he asked me to request a transfer. What would you suggest I do? Do we want to transfer this permit and Ill come back in with an amendment to make it conform with what the dimensions are on the survey? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: We took the dimensions, we would ask, whatever we end up deciding tonight, that you submit a corrected survey. MS. MOORE: The survey is correct. The description of your old '85 permit I think doesn't match our survey. The survey shows what is there. TRUSTEE KING: What's on the survey is what is there but what is on the permit and the drawings from the original permit, it didn't shrink, it grew. MS. MOORE: It looks like it shrank because it used to be a 25x6 open-pile dock, now it's a 9x6, and the rest is four-foot wide boardwalk. TRUSTEE KING: There is an original drawing there that is much smaller. MS. MOORE: No, there was an existing, looking at the drawings from the old, what they did is built a bulkhead and now the new dock was extended. The catwalk was extended to the retaining wall. Because the drawing that shows existing with a ramp and float and dredging, but the description is something different. It says 25-foot catwalk, 16-foot ramp with a 24-foot float. These are your old permits. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The existing drawing that I show from the first one is an old drawing here. MS. MOORE: Is a 1984 drawing? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, 1984, and it's a lot smaller than what is there now. It shows a 16x3 ramp. MS. MOORE: Right. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And a 24x8 float. MS. MOORE: 24x8. Hold on let me look. I'm looking at the description. So far 24x8 float was on the original description. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was on the original, and it's 16x3' wide ramp. MS. MOORE: That's on the original. It's the open pile dock that was proposed. Board oi'Trustees 16 November 19, 2008 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The 10x6 wood platform was not there. MS. MOORE: No, but it had 25x6 open-pile dock. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry, I'm not seeing that. MS. MOORE: rm looking at this notice of complete application that was filed. Let's see, the DEC one that was filed. Hold on. Yes, it's -- TRUSTEE KING: The language in the old permit matched the drawing from the old permit, that I could see. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, and it was no mention of the dolphins. MS, MOORE: Here. Reconstruct 25x6 fixed walkway. 16x3 hinged ramp, 24x8 float. So that part is good. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And there is nothing that showed the dolphins on any of these drawings, and you have two full dolphins. MS. MOORE: It's not showing on these. I'm trying to transfer an existing amendment that obviously was amended at one point in time but prior to my client purchasing the property. So it seems to be an amendment would be appropriate. TRUSTEE KING: Pat, why wasn't this transferred when he bought the property? MS. MOORE: In 2000, you didn't have to. It's like a CO. TRUSTEE KING: We always needed to transfer the permits. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Even when I was there we transferred. It was not as commonplace as it is now. MS. MOORE: I think most people considered it like a CO, you don't have to transfer a CO if there is a permit and it's been built. You didn't change the code until later, which you can't make modifications to a structure unless it has a permit, so it took some time to get people to understand you wanted to transfer permits so you could work on them. TRUSTEE KING: The work that was stopped in '98 it's in the code then, in '98. MS. MOORE: I didn't represent them, I don't know. When he learned of it, here we are, so. TRUSTEE KING: This is nothing new, you know that. MS. MOORE: I know, I see it all the time. I represent people buying properties all the time and I make it a condition. TRUSTEE KING: The 4x20 catwalks, we look at them now, they are 6x40. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think the float that's out there is the 8x24. That was on the original permit. So I think the only other things we really need to deal with is the 6x9.5 platform and the two dolphins. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Was that original permit grandfathered in? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 1985, no. MS. MOORE: It shows something was existing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The original had a 24x8 float, it had 16x3 hinged ramp, which is there now. MS. MOORE: Which was what? TRUSTEE KING: What about the catwalk? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It doesn't mention the catwalk. It Board ot~ Trustees 17 November 19, 2008 talks about dredging. MS. MOORE: But it would make sense you take the catwalk and connect it to the new retaining wall. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: When we do an amendment, can we stipulate in there when the float is to be rebuilt, it's to conform with the code? Since it's larger than what our code allows? Not that they have to rebuild it now and not that they have to reduce it, but when the float needs to be replaced that it will be brought into conformity? Not applying it to the amendment now, I'm just saying. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: We could. I don't really have a problem with the float at 8x24. It's what the original permit was. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I know, but we are trying to bring -- TRUSTEE KING: The thing is, the request is for a transfer of the permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm saying when we do the amendment. TRUSTEE KING: But what is there does not conform to that permit. So that's the problem. MS. MOORE: I would like to have -- TRUSTEE KING: We could transfer the permit, sure. There you go. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With the condition they come in for an amendment. MS. MOORE: I think that's acceptable. The description should be accurate. I don't know why it does not match, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We do it subject to, and they don't get the transfer until they come in for the amendment. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right, with the buffer, with the height removed, with the boat. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: With the conditions on the transfer. So they don't get the transfer until they do all these things. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Why don't we do it that way then we could include everything in the permit rather than try and hammer it in. MS. MOORE: Do you want that boat dolly included as well? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: All right, I'll make a motion to approve the transfer subject to the applicant bringing in an application for an amendment, to bring the permit up to speed with what is out there in the field. TRUSTEE KING: I would prefer just to table this now and then do everything at once. MS. MOORE: It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. When is your next -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: December 10. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It will be January. MS. MOORE: Because I'll need it drawn up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: December 10 is the meeting. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are advertising it's closed out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: For full permits. But if this is an Board olZTrustees 18 November 19, 2008 amendment. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is an amendment. It would be a full amendment so it would need advertising. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to table it then? Is that what the general feeling is? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's existing, so it's not like we are rushing to get something. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll withdraw the motion and make a motion to table it. MS. MOORE: It doesn't matter to me either way. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine then. MS. MOORE: Because I'll need time. We may have to carry it over to February if the surveyor takes longer to draw it up. TRUSTEE KING: Like Peg said, it's all there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VI. RESOLUTIONS-OTHER: TRUSTEE KING: Number six, under resolutions. Once again, we try and move things along, if there is no controversy and these are straightforward and simple. We'll lump one through six together. They read as follows: Number one, CHRIS BURGER requests a Duck Blind Permit in Broadwaters Cove. Access: Public. Number two, DAN HESTON requests a Duck Blind Permit in Wickham's Creek. Access, Private. Number three, CHARLES GEITZ requests an Amendment to Permit #6460 to remove the requirement of drywells and gutters on the existing dwelling and contain his runoff in accordance with Chapter 236 Stormwater Management of the Town Code. Located: 1580 Leeton Drive, Southold. Number four, amend Resolution adopted on May 21, 2008, to read as follows: En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of MICHAEL, GARRETT & TRACEY KOKE requests a Wetland Permit to place three 12"-diameter fiber rolls (to be set and strapped with untreated hardwood stakes and manila rope) along 175 linear feet of eroded embankment toe and backfill with approximately 10 cubic yards sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source and planted with Rosa Virginiana and Ammophila Breviligulata; and add supplemental plantings of Rosa Virginiana and Ammophila Breviligulata along top of embankment, all as depicted on the project plan ~oard oi'Trustees 19 November 19, 2008 prepared by En-Consultants, Inc., last dated November 5, 2008. Located: 875 Youngs Avenue, Southold. Grant permission to CORNELL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION to plant eelgrass seeds in Cedar Beach Creek for grew-out and harvest. Grant permission to the NATURE CONSERVANCY to install marsh monitoring devices at Cedar Beach. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve those as they have been submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven is Patricia Moore on behalf of THOMAS & ANDREW ZOITAS requests a Wetland Permit to install an ingreund swimming pool, patio and landscaping within 100' from the top of the bluff, retain a 30' non-turf buffer and construct beach access stairs. Located: 62555 North Road, Greenport. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. This resolution. Now, we had described in detail last month the reason for this application. There was a permit that was approved for this property at our August 20 meeting. At that meeting we left off, inadvertently, an area, a patio around the pool where a piece of that patio was within our jurisdiction and that was left off. And so -- because the pool was actually outside our jurisdiction, and so what I would like to do is make a motion to approve this resolution. And I want to put in here, I'll read from our August 20, 2008, regarding the landscaping, we'll approve a four-foot path from the lawn area to the stairs as per the August 19, 2008, and we'll approve the removal of the choker vines from the trees seaward of the present silt fence and hay bale line, and that hay bale line is depicted on the survey that is stamped received July 23, 2008. So what we are specifically addressing is just the removal of choker vines seaward from that present hay bale line. The only activity that we are approving in this resolution, seaward of the hay bale line rather than landward of the hay bale line, but seaward of the hay bale line is just the four-foot path going to the proposed stairs. We had requested that the patio around the pool be made pervious and I believe the applicant agreed with that. There is a small piece within our jurisdiction and there was no problem with that. And like I said, [ioard ob Trustees 20 November 19, 2008 the pool was outside our jurisdiction. So that's the resolution I would like to put forward tonight. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did we clarify the 30-foot non-turf buffer in the description on the agenda? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's in the resolution, as depicted, as read in -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The resolution, reading to clarify, is to install an inground swimming pool, patio, landscaping with 100 feet from the top of the bluff and retaining 30-foot non-turf buffer and construct beach access stairs. And I'm saying that this will be as per the August 20, 2008, approval with the, where we approved a four-foot path from the lawn area to the stairs as depicted, excuse me, as per August 19, 2008, landscaping, and we are approving the removal of the choker vines from the trees that are seaward of the present silt fence and hay bale line, but no other vegetation is being approved to be removed from that area. And the small piece of the patio that is within our jurisdiction, because there is a small piece, that the applicant has agreed to a pervious patio. So that's the resolution that I'm putting forward. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE KING: Aye. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Aye. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Nay TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Nay TRUSTEE KING: Three ayes, two nays. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So note for the record we have ayes from Trustee King, Trustee Doherty and Trustee Bergen. We have nays from Trustee Dickerson and Trustee Ghosio. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off the regular hearing and into the public hearing section. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JUDIE LIZEWSKI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x35' fixed walkway dock with mooring pole. Located: 145 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. Is there anybody here who would like to speak to the application? Board of Trustees 21 November 19, 2008 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, Jim Fitzgerald for Mrs. Lizewski. I was hoping we could discuss the project that was in the document that I faxed to the Trustee office the day of your inspection on October 8th or 9th or whatever, and I have some nice drawings here if you need them in addition to the ones I have provided. And I even have a suggested agenda listing to go with that drawing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So you are referring to the October 15th faxed memo with the proposed fixed walkway, ramp and float and "T"? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Here are some nice drawings of it and here is -- is that okay? Can we do that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. MR. FITZGERALD: You remember at the last meeting I asked that you table it so that we would not have a replay of the you-know-what application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What we usually do, just for procedure, we don't change the description, we keep the description as it was posted in the paper. So we were reviewing your latest. But thank you for clarifying the description. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So we were all out there and this is where the proposed, two posted -- MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, between the two stakes marked the landward end. Do you mind if I come up here so I could hear you? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Go ahead. These are just some pictures we took of the dock across the creek. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. We would like to duplicate that. I had a long talk with one of the neighbors who was concerned about the original, as I indicated in my memo, originally we were, Mrs. Lizewski and I were talking about going out 30 feet, and if you notice, the stakes out in the water, that got the attention of one of the neighbors, and we discussed the situation. There it is. This proposal is ten or 12 feet closer to the shore than that, and it is the intention of the plan to duplicate as closely as we can the other docks in the area. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which other. There is this other. This is one. MR. FITZGERALD: Like that. I mean from the standpoint of the location of the float, just seaward of the vegetation. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I see what you are saying. Because that would be the extent of it. It would be just outside of the grass area there. I believe the Board also had a question about where you are starting it. I think there was -- we'll get to the right slide that will show they had discussed possibly moving it over to this open area [~oard o?Trustees 22 November 19, 2008 here as opposed to -- I lost my stakes. MR. FITZGERALD: I know where you mean. TRUSTEE KING: There is a disturbed area there with basically no vegetation. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that's a good idea. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So it's already disturbed in that area, as opposed to disturbing the vegetation here. MR. FITZGERALD: There is less vegetation, yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This application was reviewed as inconsistent. The proposed dock is in a critical environmental area. Any proposed action in a critical environmental area may be subject to more stringent requirements such as denial of certain operations and shortening or reducing the size of the structure, which is what we are talking about, which would mitigate this to be consistent. Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with the catwalk but I don't think there is room for a float there with that depth of water. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Which is at one foot. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My question, I guess for the applicant. The landward side of that float, is that going to be sitting on the bottom at Iow tide? Because as you know, we don't like to have floats sitting on the bottom at Iow tide. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. I know. I mentioned it to the other people that have their floats. The problem appears to be there is just not enough water within a reasonable distance of the shore to get it out any further. Especially at Iow water. And then the neighbor I was talking to said there is, even now with it set up the way it is, there are times when they can't get in and out of the creek. TRUSTEE KING: Wasn't this originally applied for a long time ago, applied for a ramp and float and the previous Board just approved the catwalk with a full tie up pole, if I remember right. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You are talking prior to this? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. I'm quite sure. Didn't you apply before for a ramp and float? MR. FITZGERALD: No, the original permit, which you had approved and then expired before anything was done, was just for a catwalk. TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was for a float, too. MR. FITZGERALD: No. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is a permit #6066 that reads Wetland Permit - this is the house. Single-family dwelling. There is also a permit #5568, and also a permit -- but that also, the #5568 permit was the construction of the home, but also included to construct a 4x26 fixed walkway dock, 50-foot Board of:Trustees 23 November 19, 2008 non-disturbance buffer area. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think that's in place either. It's selective. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So what I believe Jim is saying is that when we approved a permit back in 2002, the extent of that dock at the time was a 4x26 fixed walkway, which is what we are talking about at this time. MR. FITZGERALD: Right. No, excuse me, Peggy, it was 4x35 or 36. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The permit says 26. The original 2002 permit was 4x26. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 4x26 is on this permit back in 2002. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, sorry. TRUSTEE KING: I think you applied for a longer one, but we shortened it. If I remember right. MR. FITZGERALD: I don't recall. It could very well be. TRUSTEE KING: I think the concern then was water depth going out. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Just to note, the CAC inspected the property and there was no evidence of an existing dock and the proposed dock was not staked. No recommendations can be made until the proposed dock is staked, so, I don't know when they looked at it. MR. FITZGERALD: The existing dock concept expired with the first permit and with the physical expiration of the existing dock. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So I would ask you if you are in consideration of this application without the float, is what I'm hearing; float and ramp. TRUSTEE KING: We talked about a catwalk with stairs at the end in the field. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did you hear, Jim? MR. FITZGERALD: No, sorry. TRUSTEE KING: We talked about a catwalk with a set of stairs at the end. That gives you access, and to move it over into that disturbed area. MR. FITZGERALD: If it's that or nothing, we'll take it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Is there anyone else here this evening who would like to speak to this application? (No response.) Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Do we want to go with a mooring pile? TRUSTEE KING: That was approved the first time. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want a mooring pile out there? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, I think the original permit included a mooring pile. TRUSTEE KING: It did, yes. MR. FITZGERALD: So-- TRUSTEE KING: Make it 4x8 fixed dock with a mooring pile. MR. FITZGERALD: So how long are you saying? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, it would have to be longer because B~)ard o~Trustees 24 November 19, 2008 then he'll have the ramp. So we gave him 4x26 before. You know what, we probably would have to almost see it on the, staked in the new location how far it would go out, like 4x26. So they could stake the outer limits of the 4x26 catwalk where the stairs would end and move it over to the that location. TRUSTEE KING: That would give us a better idea. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that agreeable? MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: But I think the feeling of the Board is the float is out. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we'll table it. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think you'll get DEC approval for a float there. I doubt it very much. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: It's too shallow. MR. FITZGERALD: How should we locate the landward end? Because the bulkhead, which was the measuring point for all this stuff, doesn't extend into that area. Shall I just -- TRUSTEE KING: Can you put it in line with it? MR. FITZGERALD: Just eyeball it and move it the same distance back 26 feet. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Okay, I'll make a motion to table this application for a new dimensions and staking. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of one WUNNEWETA POND ASSOC., requests a Wetland Permit to dredge (within 10 years maintenance) an approximately 20x140' area within the bulkhead inlet channel to Wunneweta Pond to a maximum depth of -4' ALW and place approximately 275 cubic yards of dredged sand spoil material above the high water line along approximately 415 linear feet of shoreline to the northwest of the inlet. Located: Wunneweta Pond Inlet, Cutchogue. This came in consistent with the LWRP however, he has some comments: To use the best management practices and install a silt fence; to use the erosion control method; installation of silt boom during dredging. And the CAC resolved to support the application. And we really didn't have any questions. It's a pretty straightforward application for us. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman on behalf of the association. The only thing I would ask is the prior Board had, at some point, because this is, and again, if you are willing to grant it, we had, the previous wetland permit that was issued was for ten years maintenance. [ioard o? Trustees 25 November 19, 2008 And the previous Board had given a letter at some point just verifying the fact that the permit was good for ten years. Because when we first started it, we kept renewing it, then eventually I think it was Al Krupski who said why do we keep coming back and reviewing something that is good for ten years. So eventually the Board gave us a letter just verifying that it was granted with ten years maintenance. And so once the dredging was done within the valid period of the permit, they could continue to dredge. I would assume your Board would want to be notified, and whatever conditions you had in terms of inspections or whatever would apply for each dredge event. But I would just ask you either work into the permit that language or just change the notice of expiration date on the permit to reflect it would be valid for ten years, again, if you are willing to grant it for that period or whatever period you are willing to grant it. Just so there is no confusion a few years later as to whether or not the permit that says it's good for ten years also says it expires in two. Other than that it's very straightforward. I know the Board is aware that dredging has been done for a long, long time there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comment? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would agree with Rob. The only issue that I have is I don't see the need for a silt boom to be used with this. This and the adjoining pond has been dredged year after year after year without the use of a silt boom and I don't think it's caused any environmental problems at all. If the applicant has no problem with the use of a silt boom, fine, I just don't see that it's necessary now to change or amend the practice that has been used year after year after year which has not created any problems. MR. HERMAN: I mean, it's done mechanically. I think if this was done hydraulically and material was being spewed on to the beach, that would be different. But for the mechanical dredging, it's really not necessary. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. I would agree. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comment? (No response.) Hearing none, I'll close the hearing for Wunneweta Pond Association. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve the application of En-Consultants on behalf of Wunneweta Pond Association as applied for with the condition that our normal two-year expiration operation date is [ioard oi~ Trustees 26 November 19, 2008 changed to ten-year maintenance dredging. MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it's found consistent with LWRP, as I said before. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, Richard Henry Behr Architect on behalf of CHARLES & AMY SCHARF requests a Wetland Permit to renovate the existing 362 square foot boat house and 206 square foot bath house. Located: 750 Paradise Point Road, Southold. The CAC has resolved to support the application with the condition that a detailed description of the project is submitted and gutters and drywells are installed to contain roof runoff and there is no disturbance to the bluff during renovation. LWRP has found it to be exempt. (Perusing.) There is really no other comments. The Board was out to see the project and we did note that we did ask that we get some plans to show us the extent of the renovation. Those plans have arrived. We have those in the file. We were just concerned about making sure there is no expansion and it was not going to be a habitable space. As I reviewed the drawings that were submitted on the 17th of November, the plans do indicate that they are renovating as it exists. There is no habitable space. As a matter of fact they are going to be removing the water heater and capping the water line that goes out to the bath house. So that's what we were looking for. Is there anybody here would like to speak for or against this application? MR. KANNEL: Yes. My name is Chris Kannel, I'm representing the firm of Richard Henry Behr Architect on behalf of the applicants. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Anybody want to see the plans? It's pretty straightforward. MR. KANNEL: I do have a question. You mentioned in your comments that the CAC recommended the use of gutters and roof drains. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Yes. MR. KANNEL: Is that something that the Board is going to require for this application? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I believe it's required by code, drainage code. MR. KANNEL: Even for a renovation -- actually, it's not a renovation. It's actually a repair of the existing building without expansion. Board of Trustees 27 November 19, 2008 TRUSTEE KING: Are there drywells for the showers that are there? MR. KANNEL: I do not know. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: My guess is there probably is not. It just drains into the beach. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It drains into the beach. MR. KANNEL: Even if there is a drywell, that's where it's going. They are right down on the water. We have to put a pump in in order to get the runoff to a dry place. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Will the drainage code require gutters and drywells? TRUSTEE KING: The drainage code says you have to contain runoff on your property. It doesn't specifically say how to do it. MR. KANNEL: Typically speaking, if you are not expanding a nonconforming you don't have to repair a nonconforming. In New York State, existing building code is pretty clear, if you are repairing existing conditions, it's a repair, unless it's threatening life and safety. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In my opinion being it's on the beach the way it is, I don't think having gutters and drywells will really be of any ecological or environmental benefit. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree. TRUSTEE KING: It's sand, I mean. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comment or questions? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Was there part of the application for a walkway on that? MR. KANNEL: No. TRUSTEE KING: I thought I saw something. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The walkway and the stairs were not on the description, and we wanted to add them. They were on the plan but not on the description. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE GHOSIO: rll make a motion to approve the application as written since we do have a set of plans in the file showing there won't be any expansion of habitable space. It was found, like we said, found exempt by LWRP. I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. KANNEL: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Patricia Moore on behalf of LEO & VIRGINIA ALES$1 requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct, as needed, the existing 3xl 1' fixed dock, Board of Trustees 28 November 19, 2008 3x12' ramp and 8x15' floating dock. Located: 1700 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. This was found exempt from the LWRP. Replacement, rehabilitation and reconstruction of a structure or facility inkind and on same site. The only question we have, Pat, we can't find any permit for any of this. MS. MOORE: That's why I did it this way. The Alessi family has owned this property since the 1940s, and there has always been a dock there. Mr. and Mrs. Alessi bought the property in the 1970s and there was a dock there. So when I, they were going to be, maybe a year ago or so, they were considering selling the property, and at that time we went looking for permits expecting that a buyer would want to see permits in hand. There was nothing on record because it predated everything. So we don't have grandfather permits. You had them at one point in time. We don't have them anymore. So the solution is to get a permit for repairs of the existing structure as needed. Obviously it doesn't need repairs right now but once it has a permit then we can repair it as needed, so. That was the rationale. It would be agreed if you had grandfather permits because then some of the old docks that were never caught in the, in the inventory of the 70s and 80s, I'm not sure exactly when; the 80s. TRUSTEE KING: The only problem I saw with it, it's really sticking out further than it should. I think the float would be better if it was turned sideways and get that in a little bit. Because there is plenty of deep water. It drops off real quick. And it's, the float is pretty new. That doesn't have to be replaced for a long time. The float is probably only a couple of years old. So it's already been replaced. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's basically moving the one piling over. MS. MOORE: I know he has -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I agree. MS. MOORE: I'll talk to him. My client was going to be here, then he had some emergency, so if it's a problem on relocating the float so it's parallel to the shore, I think is what you are suggesting, I'll let you know. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And moving the piling in. MS. MOORE: You have to then relocate the pile. He has, I think, I'll check the size of the boat. Because he'll need -- right now it works fine the way it is but if he's attaching a boat on the outside of the float, we'll need to have the pile in the right place. And I don't know where that will be. TRUSTEE KING: Unless he could back the whole float in the way it is. Like I said, it's pretty deep there. It's definitely sticking out further than it should. Board of Trustees 29 November 19, 2008 MS. MOORE: You'll be hitting the back end of the float, pushing it back, you'll be in the marsh. It drops down to deep water quickly but it also drops down to shallow water if you were to move it back. I think we could certainly move it, you know, put it parallel to the shore, pretty much where it is, just shifting it parallel to shore. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we thought out there, is just turn it 90 degrees. There is plenty of water there. I don't think that it will affect the depth at all for the owner. And -- MS. MOORE: If he has a sailboat I just don't know how that impacts the keel, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you want to table it so you could discuss it with him? MS. MOORE: Why don't we do that. I mean, it's existing. So why don't we do that. I would hate to agree to something that doesn't work for him. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. MS. MOORE: Thank you. Very productive night. I have two adjournments. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of ROBERTA JAKLEVlC requests a Wetland Permit to replace an existing timber 104' bulkhead situated within the eastern corner of subject property with a new vinyl-sheathed bulkhead. A small open bulkhead extension 6'6" consisting of vinyl sheathing secured by two rows of timber whalers, a timber top cap and timber pilings is proposed to connect the southernmost terminus of the replacement bulkhead with the northernmost existing dock to provide structural stability without impeding tidal flow. Located: 900 Old harbor Road, New Suffolk. The CAC did go out and look at this and they resolved to support it with the addition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer. And I think what they are referring to, and I'll ask the gentleman, you are talking around the proposed bulkhead that is adjacent to the boat house MR. MCCREEVEY: Where applicable. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it was reviewed under LWRP and found to be consistent, providing that the proposed 6'6" bulkhead extension is a Iow sill bulkhead pursuant to 275-11. And the other thing we had asked for, we had asked at the time that we thought we recommended to the applicant, that they permit in the existing wood dock and walkways as depicted on the site plan that is Board of Trustees 30 November 19, 2008 stamped received October 20, 2008. They have done that and so when we get to a resolution I'll read into the record the dimensions that have been provided for us for those walkways and docks so that they are permitted in at the same time. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant Roberta Jaklevic, who is here tonight. The first thing you should have, I'll add, we received a letter from Ms. Jaklevic's neighbor, Abigail Wickham. You should have that in your file. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. We do have that. I'll read it into the record, since it's very short. Dated November 13. Dear Trustees, as neighboring property owner to Roberta Jaklevic, I fully support her application. The boat house is part of the heritage of New Suffolk and I'm glad she is attempting to preserve it. Sincerely yours, Abigail Wickham. MR. ANDERSON: I see no problem whatsoever with the ten foot. It's not a fertilized area that surrounds the bulkhead so I see no issue with that at all. I do have to say, though, the six-foot extension on the, what we call the open bulkhead, has to be built at a height that matches the catwalk that it ties into and the bulkhead that we are replacing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Are you talking here (indicating) MR. ANDERSON: It's actually on the other side. And it's purpose is to make it strong. And so we are talking about tacking it right across here. If we put it down here somewhere, we defeat the purpose for having it. A Iow sill bulkhead, its purpose is to allow water to flow over it so that the marsh is fed with tidal waters. Since this is open, these are literally, it's almost like a picket fence the way it's designed, and you can turn to the last three pages, it accomplishes the same thing. So we would like to keep it at the same elevation so it serves its purpose. The only purpose is so it fastens the end of that bulkhead sheet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just want to explain what Scott Hilary told me why he did this consistent. The project would have been exempt, but you are adding the structure, which makes it inconsistent. But he was trying to find it consistent because it's, he says the project is basically exempt. So what he was saying, why he said the Iow sill, as long as the water can flow through and go around and the bulkhead is not blocking the water going to that marsh, then he would find it consistent. MR. ANDERSON: Then we are consistent. That happened by design anyway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. That's what he explained to me today. He called me today on this. It's one of those things he has Board of Trustees 31 November 19, 2008 to go by the letter of the law and he just was trying to get his way around it so he would not make it inconsistent, because over that six feet -- MR. ANDERSON: Right. And we don't want the end of this bulkhead to wobble. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And just for the record, it did not pass the Bob structural integrity test. I almost fell through. MR. ANDERSON: We've added the dock areas that surround it, because they will eventually, they'll require maintenance and so forth, so I appreciate that process as sort of tidying up this very nice piece of property. TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, were there any thoughts for shoring up the walls of the building itself? MR. ANDERSON: Well, Ms. Jaklevic has an engineer and we are told the actual walls, as you know, the building is not supported by the bulkhead. They are on locust posts, and for the moment, they are sound. TRUSTEE KING: I just had thoughts of my own, just out of my own. If you ran, you could run some pieces underneath from the top of the new bulkhead underneath the building to a pole outside, on top of a pole. While this is all open, now is the time to do it, if you want to get some extra support for those walls. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Jim, is this where you are talking? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, the wall is supported by posts. But inside bulkhead is lower than the wood base of the wall. You could put a 6x6 across under there and set it on a pole outside, then when you do your backfill, it's done. MR. MCCREEVEY: Like a sill. TRUSTEE KING: It's something to think about while you are doing this. It will be a tremendous amount of support for that building. MR. ANDERSON: Can I suggest this. If we are going to get our permit today, let's get it. Because we have two more processes remaining with the DEC and also the Army Corps. TRUSTEE KING: You can always come in and amend it to include pieces under the -- MR. ANDERSON: You are very user friendly. I could come back and resolve that within a month's time, but with these other agencies, I don't want to slow it down to the point where I jeopardize the bulkhead. Do you understand what he's saying? MS. JAKLEVIC: In a way, yes. The thing has been there since the 30s, folks. And it's on locusts posts, and I understand once they get in, they are like little cement blocks. It seems stable to me. I have been told by people who know that it is stable. At this point I would agree with Bruce, I want to get these permits in place. To me, this project is very important. It's an historic, old building. I love it. I want to keep it. I want to maintain it. I want to get this work Board o~Trustees 32 November 19, 2008 done. And if I feel that it's in jeopardy, structurally, then I'll have to address that problem at some time. MR. ANDERSON: I think the suggestion is maybe go back, let them process the permit, go back, if we want to add it now because it will make it better, it's cheaper to do now, it's easier to do it now and it may save you a significant amount of money down the line is what you are saying. TRUSTEE KING: I think it would be cheaper insurance for the structural integrity of the building. Two or three supports under there means a lot. MR. ANDERSON: Take that upon yourself. We'll go the way we are going. Is that acceptable? TRUSTEE KING: That's fine. It was just a suggestion. MR. ANDERSON: A good one. TRUSTEE KING: Because once have you this opened up, now is the time to do what you want to do. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? (No response.) If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Roberta Jaklevic as described, with an addition that you want to permit in the existing wood dock and walkways as depicted on the site plan that was stamped received October 20, 2008, and is described as canal number one consisting of two walkway ramps, 60-square feet total, and dockage 1,190 square feet total, and then along Schoolhouse Creek, six walkways and ramps, 465 square feet total and dockage 2,050 square foot total. The overall area of the existing walkways, ramps, dockage, consists of 3,705 square feet. So I'll make a motion to approve that application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) MR. ANDERSON: And we'll just amend that one sheet to show the ten-foot buffer. Is that it? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I apologize. Yes, we did want to have in that a ten-foot non-turf buffer around the permitter. MR. ANDERSON: Shown on the sight plans then. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, correct. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number seven, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of DANIELE CAClOPPO requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing 1,200 square foot wooden deck around the pool and replace with a Board o~ Trustees 33 November 19, 2008 permeable patio. Located: 1455 Inlet Way, Southold. It's found exempt under the LWRP. CAC supports the application with the condition that drywells are installed to contain pool backwash and provisions are made to prevent any runoff from the pool into the wetlands, such as permanent barrier. (:;AC recommends pervious materials are used on the patio because interlocking pavers are not pervious. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. BOSSEN: I'm Derek Bossen, Creative Environmental Design. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we had a problem with the application itself. On the decking there is different structures; the ramp for instance and then this bath house type shower. MR. BOSSEN: That shower enclosure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Behind that is a little garden area, I don't know what it's called. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And those are not on the plans. MR. BOSSEN: Because the plans I showed really was just the existing deck and the expansion of that deck for the patio surfacing. Those structures would be removed and eliminated. But not the ramping. The ramping was going to remain, that shower enclosure -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The ramp is on the plan. MR. BOSSEN: That was just going to become the expanded, will just be the expanded patio. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you are removing that structure. MR. BOSSEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, because the description doesn't talk about the expansion. Does this 1,200 square feet include that expansion? MR. BOSSEN: The permit that I submitted this for, the removal of the existing 1,200 square foot decking and extend that to -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Here it is. You have it. 1,480 square feet. MR. BOSSEN: Yes. Which I was told, and I was doing that to match what I was told was a previously-approved garage for this property. Is there any, I didn't know if there was a permit for a garage that was proposed on some previous date. TRUSTEE KING: There was a long time ago. Seems to me there was a little walkway. I don't think we approved the whole garage. We shortened everything up, if I remember right. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We kept moving it back. TRUSTEE KING: Right. We were up there numerous times. MR. BOSSEN: This is to go to the extent of that approved garage limit. So that if you see in the plan, the edge of the proposed patio, on the plans, going landward of that was the extension of the garage. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I know one of the problems with that original application was, it was, it went way too far into the wetland area, which is why we kept backing it up. But this little area here between the house and this area is what we had discussed. So where will the extent of that patio be? MR. BOSSEN: I can show you on the plans. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I see it on the plans. But it goes beyond this extent here? MR. BOSSEN: Right, I assume that's this corner here. Board otZTrustees 34 November 19, 2008 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: This is right behind the changing house. MR. BOSSEN: That would be removed. That section would be removed. This is the shower enclosure, this triangle here, so the extension would be this part, is really strictly this hash mark part on the drawing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What material are you planning on using? MR. BOSSEN: The same material that we used farther east down the block, which is bluestone pavers set on permeable gravel. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there a drywell for the pool right now; do you know? MR. BOSSEN: I don't know if there is, but we'll put a drywell landward. I could resubmit a plan showing where the proposed drywells can go. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Could you include, since it will be patio, have the runoff go toward that drywell? MR. BOSSEN: Everything will be pitched landward of the wetlands. We'll contain all the runoff from, because right now it runs straight down hill. It will all be pitched back to drains that will be piped to drywells landward. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it could be the same drywell as for the pool. It doesn't have to be separate. MR. BOSSEN: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That answers all my questions. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: CAC comments? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC comments, make sure it's permeable and drywells for the runoff for the pool. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And LWRP just requests a line of hay bales during construction. I don't know if that's really necessary because they are not disturbing any of the -- TRUSTEE KING: There won't be a lot of excavation. MR. BOSSEN: No, probably just deposition of material, because the wood, we have to bring all that level up to. So most of that material will be contained with what is already planted outside of the, that lattice fence that is there now. And one thing I didn't put on there, there is a stairwell, you can see in that panel fence, the lattice work, there is a staircase that exits in that area. That will be eliminated. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Any other questions? (No response.) Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a resolution to approve the application of Creative Environmental Design on behalf of Daniele Cacioppo to remove existing 1,200 square foot wooden deck around the pool and replace it with a 1,480 square foot permeable patio with drywells for the pool and runoff from the patio. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.) Board of'Trustees 35 November 19, 2008 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to close the meeting. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: Motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES.)